Open Carry
-
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
-
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
Too late then. He's already got the drop on you. Shoot him in the face first ask questions later. That's what Zimmerman would do.
Zimmerman would leave the store then come back and shoot the open carrier.
-
Meanwhile... a journalist looked into the anti gun org stats on mass shootings in schools:
and:
-
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
So if you actually believe what you are saying how could you not demand a total ban?
Why would society ever consider allowing a device with no other purpose than to hurt and kill people
Seriously.
WSS
-
OK here's the deal, stop the bad guys having guns (by cracking down on the black market, introducing all your favourite background checks and mental illness exclusions etc), and actually do it well, meaning that people don't feel the need to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm of some kind. Then you can get back to actually using them for the things that you can legitimately claim as good usage - recreational things like hunting and range shooting etc., there's no problem with having guns for these IMO.
It's not a difficult concept, but it hinges on good execution, including having people in charge that aren't corrupt (which may be tricky to find in America
). -
What would you each do to reduce the killing sprees that you guys seem to have on a shockingly regular basis?
-
What would you each do to reduce the killing sprees that you guys seem to have on a shockingly regular basis?
What would you each do to reduce the killing sprees that you guys seem to have on a shockingly regular basis?
Repeal the Second Amendment which was never about hunting and target shooting in the first place. Confiscate every firearm you can find and provide harsh penalties for anyone having one. Same harsh penalties for anyone involved in smuggling or importing firearms.
It might be necessary to spot check homes on a regular basis and search for firearms.
Probably raise taxes a substantial amount and dedicate that money toward gun confiscation task forces.
Now before anyone gets all huffy remember that this would work eventually.
So ask yourself how serious you are reducing gun violence.
WSS
-
-
It actually isn't sarcasm Chris. It's something that would work. The problem is nobody really gives a fuck. It's much more fun to battle back and forth for political gain over tiny little useless pieces of legislation. A political campaign tool, but not even close to a solution. Like this kabuki dance over background checks and chanting the mantra mental health mental health mental health.
WSS
-
And I understand it must seem odd to someone who has basically grown up without anything like a second Amendment. It must be hard to fathom why its such a big deal to the gun lovers.
WSS
-
Brits don't like guns. They remember what them unruly settlers did when they had guns.
-
Anyone want to tell me why that plan wouldn't substantially cut down on gun violence? Anyone want to give me an acceptable reduction number?
Woody, Cysko, Osiris, Chris?
WSS
-
OK, sorry, I assumed it was sarcasm because it sounded like an amalgamation of all the things that are typically portrayed as liberal, unamerican etc on here. 'The constitution is a god given right, you can't repeal it!' 'Just a money making scheme from the left' 'invasion of privacy' etc. - I'm sure you can understand my confusion.
I think it would work in it's main aim of reducing gun crime, but you're going to end up with a massively unhappy populous with regards to the spot checks and tax raises. I think if that approach was taken, as well, you'd be focussing perhaps too much on a single issue.
That being said, if it eliminates gun crime within 50 years, and it means that it's a lot easier to actually uphold any law banning weapons in public, then maybe it's not such a bad thing, and something that you'd look back on in 200 years as a turning point in american culture.
-
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.
No. No. No. And NOPE.
The reason these other "devices" are brought into the discussion, is to demonstrate that shitty people will use "normal" things to commit violence and suffering unto others when a gun isn't available.
Playing the numbers game (if public safety as the goal is to be believed) "deaths by gun" ranks very low on the list.
It's low enough as to not even be highlighted on this "list"
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Now talking strictly homocides: guns make up 70% of the tool of choice (9000 ish out of 13000 ish).
Drunk driving takes the lives of 10000 ish Americans annually. 28 each day.
226 children, 122 of them riding with the offender.
http://www.madd.org/statistics/
Haven't we "outlawed" drinking and driving? Have we not imposed severe punishment and fines for breaking this law? There aren't any "background checks" required before you can drink a beer, or "let's do a shot!!" with some terrible Sorostitute. (Disclaimer- I'm not opposed to background checks for guns, just making a point. There was a time I was not opposed to Sorostitutes either - that has come and gone though)
So we can acknowledge that alcohol becomes a problem when combined with driving a motor vehicle impaired (ignoring overdoses). Banning just alcohol didn't work.
Why is it so hard to apply this logic to guns? Guns become a problem when combined with violent behavior, not on their own. Prohibition hasn't shown itself to not be effective in this country. Plinking paper or steel targets, or hunting for food/sport is not violent behavior (try to refrain from the PETA hunting is murder take - go spend a day at a Purdue chicken plant or cattle slaughterhouse).
So even though we still face a drinking and driving problem, at least we are targeting the problem: drinking and driving - nobody is targeting the beers. Because that's silly.
As a final note, to reference another ill-informed take from our commander-in-queef: Australia had a 7-8% firearm ownership rate when they confiscated/banned guns, not the 88% that the US has. Confiscation won't be possible here and criminals will likely continue to ignore the laws (hey, what's one more).
Since enacting the ban, Australia has enjoyed a 31.9% decrease in the murder rate. Over that same time period (with no gun ban, & increased gun ownership), the US has seen a 31.7% decrease. Australia has watched assaults increase 50%, and rapes increase by 30%.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php/index.php?Article_ID=17847
-
I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.
We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.
I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.
How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?
WSS
-
I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.
We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.
I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.
How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?
WSS
I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.
We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.
I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.
How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?
WSS
So do you think if we lifted the ban on drinking and driving that we'd have the same number of DWI-related accidents as when the ban was present? Ditto for the other crimes you listed?
-
I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.
We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.
I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.
How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?
WSS
So do you think if we lifted the ban on drinking and driving that we'd have the same number of DWI-related accidents as when the ban was present? Ditto for the other crimes you listed?
I'm not advocating lifting any ban. I'm advocating strict enforcement, at least the devil is. What's your objection? If in fact your goal is to eliminate school shootings and gun violence then what percentage is acceptable?So do you think if we lifted the ban on drinking and driving that we'd have the same number of DWI-related accidents as when the ban was present? Ditto for the other crimes you listed?
What's your number?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Why is it that it's always all or nothing? Why are gun people so fucking insistent that there's either no regulations, total lawlessness, wild wild west or a complete and total ban of all guns no questions asked?
Why not try small measures first like mandatory drug testing for gun ownership. It would keep those with the dreaded SSRIs in their systems from buying legal guns.
Now maybe they would seek out the Mexican gun and drug runners to buy one illegally. Maybe. Maybe they'd go to the ghetto and approach some gang banger looking for a hot gun. Maybe. Maybe they would. Or maybe they would not because those things are scary. Maybe they'd just go back down to the basement and play call of duty.
Or maybe it would be easier to totally reform the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry to stop prescribing pills to people. God knows that doctors aren't arrogant at all and take suggestions that maybe they're doing more harm than good really well.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
PS for the record I don't think drinking and driving laws are really meant to promote safety. I think, like most traffic infractions, are meant to provide profit for the cities and townships.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login